Is space a lie? Why is earth supposedly spinning in the vacuum

How high are you right now OP?

It depends on your initial speed and trajectory, our {0,0,0} is moving.
It all works, don't worry about it. And don't read anything about paradoxes or FTL.

>>719389624
I don't smoke weed other than trying it years back.

I've just been reading into a bunch of stuff recently and it got me thinking a lot.

I've accepted science's explanations about the universe, gravity, the big bang, formation of stars & solar systems, etc all my life.

But in the last month or so I've started questioning everything.

>>719389563
This is your first step to becoming one of those flat-earth nutcases. Do yourself a favour, stop now before its too late.

File: frodo.jpg (37KB, 399x398px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 399x398px

Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

>>719389788
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY7fzsBlor0

start watching these videos op, you'll fit right in.

>>719389563
Like you said, "relatively". You would need to take a college course in the theory of relativity to get a true understanding. but basically the rocket leaves earth on a straight path relative to our POV. The planets have elliptical orbits relative to the POV of our solar system. But since it is orbiting the center of the milky way, and the milky way is moving through the universe, everything has a 3 dimensional trajectory which you aren't considering because you're not a physicist

>>719389563
>>719389765
Have you been reading into the science behind these things or flat earth stuff?
If the former, why ask this and if the latter why are you reading that stuff?

File: 1483079600732.jpg (40KB, 277x296px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 277x296px

>>719389563
Nigger, do you even know how physics works?

>>719389788
>>719389882
Shit like this doesn't actually answer my questions. You may as tell me I'm going to be one of those homosexuals because I wore a pink t-shirt.

As for Earth, since you mentioned it, I don't claim to disbelieve the round model commonly accepted. I don't know anything about it.

One thing I do know is that we've been lied to for decades about the nature of earth below the surface.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5ryEcg29nc

>>719390051
like i said, you'll fit right in.

File: 15781512_1809587392614606_1981447850707134378_n.jpg (19KB, 532x800px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 532x800px

Here, watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHGKIzCcVa0

>>719390034
Yes I do. Supposedly Earth is spinning at 1,040 MPH yet our rockets just shoot out into straight trajectories. Wouldn't they retain the momentum from the spin as they got further away from Earth's 'gravitational pull'? Yet this doesn't happen

>>719390148
>>719389992

>>719389992
I'm aware everything has a 3d trajectory. I didn't even mention orbit, trajectory, or our moving system/ milky way galaxy. I mentioned our 1040MPH spinning planet. An object taking off from a 1040MPH spinning planet shouldn't have no momentum from that spin. You're not answering my question by talking about our velocity or our orbit, yes those things are relative, I know our planet's moving. I'm talking about our rotation, the speed at which our planet is spinning on its axis. Why not answer that one?

>>719390148


They don't shoot in a straight trajectory though. coriolis effect causes them to appear shooting in a curves trajectory to the perspective of the onlooker from Earth.

Have you ever heard of the coriolis effect? And also, the example you gave about the car going 1000mph is irrelevant because the atmosphere has the same speed in the same direction of the rotation.

>>719390382
Because the rocket leaves earth at 12km/s

>>719390413
>>719390409
Coriolis effect is a big meme

http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadCoriolis.html

Geostationary orbit, sigh. Satellites wouldn't work without it. Flat earthers are speshul.

>>719390690
I know I didn't mean satellites specifically, actually not at all, they're still in our orbit & gravitational pull. Long range though. Voyager for example. Explain.

>>719390672

Would you prefer it to be called Coriolis Force instead? Splitting hairs over semantics doesn't change the information provided and such the claims still stand since you didn't actually tackle them.

>>719389563
>1000+mph
570,000mph, actually. If you factor in the movement of the sun in the Milky Way and the movement of the Milky Way through the Universe.

Dude are you kidding me? Stop watching those stupid youtube videos and read some real shit! Coriolis effect is not a fucking meme, it's the reason winds go clockwise around high pressure systems on a bigger scale. The radial velocity of the earth being higher around the equator is the reason nasa lauches near it. For fuck's sake, I hope you're just trolling...

>>719390382
If you were traveling 25000mph and got hit by a gust of wind 1040mph would it have much effect on you?

>>719389563
Just buy the complete set of History Channels The Universe. It'll answer all your questions.

>>719389563
>>719390382


Yes the rocket keeps it momentum initially, that's why while in the atmosphere it appears in a more or less straight trajectory. the rocket goes straight, but we are spinning, so the rocket is spinning as well, just as our whole atmosphere. Once out of the atmosphere there is no drag from the air anymore so they can steer the craft in a direction with rockets and with the aid of gravitational pulls.

> if I stick my head out of a 100MPH moving car (not particularly comparable since it's tiny compared to our planet) even with no wind I'd feel a crazy rush of air
> leave earth

You mean earth's surface or earth's atmosphere?

And you are supposed to have red a lot about space etc.?

>>719390904
I wasn't talking about the spelling or the term used. I'm not pedantic. I'm talking about the science - the force. It's been greatly exaggerated.

File: 1422571041960.jpg (287KB, 960x754px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 960x754px

>>719389563
yo dude everythings fake lol.
like when were babies and shit. nothing has form or meaning.
we dont know what tree is or what a book is. or words or anything.
as we grow we attach meanings to things. we learn that trees are those big brown things that come out of the ground and grow green stuff. but are they really trees? or is that just what a couple billion lifeforms decided to call it? lol that shit aint a tree op. its nothing. it just is. just as we are. we can only "be" like whaaaat? fuckin mind fuckin myself right now lol. but yeah man.

dont go down that rabbit hole or you will not come out sane. stop looking for answers, stoping trying to find truths, stop searching for meaning and just be.

good luck bruh

>>719391765
Nah those things are real, explained, I mean we know how they work even down to the atomic level.

I just think we could've been getting hoodwinked about space/ it's nature over the last few centuries.

>>719392185
For what purpose?

Spin around like a retard

Explain why the atoms on my clothes and body dont fly off

>>719392376
Like hell if I know

>>719392407
Who said anything about atoms flying off? I'm talking about momentum / velocity/ direction/ speed.

>>719392477
What makes you think they would do so then?
If there is no apparent reason to do a thing, why would they do it?

>>719392572
If they were the reason wouldn't exactly be apparent or it would be a bit pointless

>>719392185
again. reality is nothing more then consensus.
you keep referring to "we"
the language you are speaking is made up.
its not real. just millions of meaningless lifeforms have an agreement on what certain sounds mean. no different than a dogs understanding of growls being a hostile noise.

humans are just much more complex, but still ultimately fake and meaningless.

>>719389563
I'd say keep reading up on it and being sceptical. Just be sceptical of the sources you're reading too. I think if you keep looking into it and questioning science, you'll come to the conclusion out current model of physics is pretty accurate. Scepticism always leads to the truth. Please just don't be a credulous fool, OP.

>>719389563
>Why is earth supposedly spinning in the vacuum of space at 1000+mph but when astronauts or rockets leave earth they travel in a relatively straight trajectory?

They dont, they orbit a little and then slingshot into other orbits then land

>>719393298
>don't be a credulous fool

I really think people have this hardwired into thier brains. Unfortunately

Its how religion gets its foothold.

>>719394031
I disagree. People have great potential to be credulous and their retard parents are often enablers, but with a decent and educational upbringing people can be quite smart.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4256x2832px

>>719389563
>they travel in a relatively straight trajectory
>relatively straight trajectory
>straight

File: All Trajectorys Are Curves.jpg (834KB, 3584x2390px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 3584x2390px

>>719389563
>they travel in a relatively straight trajectory?
No they don't dumbass.

>even with no wind I'd feel a crazy rush of air.
You do know there is no air in space, right?

>>719394234
>>719394460
The trajectory is relatively straight compared toa 1040MPH spin. The first explanation offered to me was that the velocity of the rockets is so high that it pierces through the spin. Now you've changed it to 'it's not straight' well I did use the word 'relatively'. Still haven't come up with an explanation.

Yes when I was talking about the rush of air I meant that's how fast your stationary face is experiencing movement in a moving car. Yet a rocket travelling from a 1040MPH spinning planet we're supposed to believe just travels along to its destination (and i aint talking about orbiting satellites) without that 1040MPH spin?

No one's come up with an actual explanation yet, you keep sidelining or changing the subject/ twisting my words.

>>719391581
What do you mean it's been greatly exaggerated?

>>719394712
Check the link in my post you replied to

>>719392185
The nature of space has been understood for hundreds of years (to a point). Whatever properties space has, those properties effect multiple things--the propagation of light from various stars, the motion of planets around us, etc. When we measure those things and compare them to what we expect, we find the effect space has on them (and therefore the properties space itself must have). I'm not sure what hoodwinking you think might be going on, but the properties of space are pretty straightforward

>>719394747
That's the Coriolis force for meteorology, dummy. It's negligible there because the force scales with the velocity of the object. It's not greatly exaggerated in general (and plays important roles, for instance, in ballistics)

>>719390051
>the round model

my sides

>>719390051
We know material densities with decent spatial resolution by measuring wave propagation through the earth. We can do this in multiple different ways (seismic activity, baseline neutrino data, etc). There's a lot of uncertainty, but what you find on wikipedia is likely pretty close to correct. No need to look at nutcase videos of nonsense by people who don't know science.

File: spoinning.jpg (61KB, 1032x286px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1032x286px

Op, they are spinning at the same rate and direction you and the earth are even as they leave the atmosphere. Hence why it appears "straight".

If you'd bothered to watch a few shuttle launches you'd notice they don't actually fly straight up but arc up into the rotation of the earth. If they reached space and stopped totally they would move out of sight as you rotate away.

Cool b8 thread, m8.

>>719389563
You would have to understand the laws of physics to be able to ask if something goes against them. Ever see a launch? Maybe you should study how rockets are able to go in orbit.
3/10 made me reply

>>719390148
the momentum is maintained, entering an orbit which travels in the same direction as the rotation of the earth takes less energy than to travel in an orbit over the opposite direction, precisely because of the momentum we have because of our spinning earth

Simulation theory.

Just like a video game. When you go out in a boat in a game and want to see how far you can go, you LOOK like you're moving outward...but it's an illusion. You're actually just sitting in one spot. You're in a giant cage that's meant to look like the infinite.

Space is that giant cage. Space is that manufactured infinite. The boundary that looks like it goes on forever, but it is meant to keep us in place.

>>719395765
/Thread

>>719389563
>but when astronauts or rockets leave earth they travel in a relatively straight trajectory?
No they don't, just have a look at the proposed trajectory for astronauts to reach mars.

>>719390767
You have to go fast enough to break from gravity. We actually use the gravity of planets to sling shot satellites to other planets.
Still bait

>>719389563
space is a lie

>>719391211
No air current in space

>>719394234
actually that rocket is performing that turn with control surfaces and thrust vectoring.

ten bucks says OP is asking /b/ because he's banned from /sci/

>>719394031
You ain't kidding about how being religious fucks the brains sense of logic and reasonable thinking. I read a long article about it. It's basically convincing yourself stupid

>>719394709
maybe you should learn things instead of asking questions about your ignorance to them. Only you can achieve the answers you're looking for. Your mindset is why religion exists.

>>719389563
Orbiting a planet is when a space craft is traveling horizontally fast enough so that it almost perfectly counteracts earth's gravitational forces.

Think of a canon shooting a ball so fast that before gravity can take it to the ground, the ground is affected by the curvature of the earth(the cannon ball keeps falling horizontally). The canon ball will never reach the ground and isn't impacted by atmospheric friction, so it just keeps 'falling'.

Take your car for instance. Driving 60mph or km, whatever er conversion you use. Then while driving, toss a small ball up. It will go straight up and then back down without curvature or deviation from its path. Physics is crazy. If you need another simple example. Check out the explanation of physics on a boat in the ocean. Same idea, just a better premise.

there are two types of people in this thread: those who've played kerbal and those who aren't smart enough

>>719395765
You won't get a response for having the right answer. It's how trolling works

If you read a textbook on rocket launches and orbits, the initial velocity /momentum from the Earth's rotation is very clearly taken into account. Rockets don't 'lose' that momentum. They usually make use of it to burn less fuel when entering their initial orbit.

Also, nothing travels on straight lines in space: it's a spherical reference frame, everything travels in ellipses, curves, etc.

File: tmg-article_default_mobile.jpg (34KB, 480x325px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 480x325px

>>719395765
this

>>719395765
Also no rush of air because, Vacuum.

>>719389807
B is like the meme, dead

Rockets take off and use the spin of the earth to help provide cheap deltaV to get into orbit. Knowing that the earth is spinning at 1000+MPH provides the rocket with free 1000+MPH meaning that the rocket doesn't have to spend as much fuel as if it was to shoot straight up.

Rockets perform a gravity turn, they don't just shoot straight up.

>>719396742

This post cured my cancer

>>719395765

OP gonna play it off as trolling in 3..2..1..

>>719389563
the space is a lie and the earth is flat everyone sayin otherwise is a sick atheist who needs to be killed

>even with no wind I'd feel a crazy rush of air.

no wind,

feel air.

are you fucking stupid?

File: n8umjWj.png (3KB, 698x1284px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 698x1284px

>>719395765
>op

>>719391067
yea i always read it was more like 1000 km/s

>>719395765
Then op left without a trace as the right answer was said.

>>719399999